On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> You're just repeating yourself, so I will too. Cold fusion is a theory >> to explain erratic calorimetry results. >> > > The results are not erratic. As shown by McKubre they are clearly governed > by control parameters such as loading and current density. > McKubre himself said there is no quantitative reproducibility. That means the results are erratic. If they weren't, and they were real, there'd be a Nobel prize. > When the necessary conditions are met the effect ALWAYS occurs. Granted, > it is difficult to meet them. > Four years after McKubre said he had all the parameters defined, he said he spoke to soon: "With hindsight, we may now conclude that the presumption of repeatable excess heat production was premature…". He only got 20% reproducibility, and with piddling power levels. That's erratic.
